HAMPTON DELLINGER FIRED (PER JUDGE)

The fired head of the office that investigates whistleblower retaliation, has dropped his legal challenge to President Trump

BY SNN.BZ LEGAL STAFF

Dellinger’s Legal Battle: Why He Relinquished a Futile Argument

In a significant legal development, Hampton Dellinger, the former head of the office tasked with investigating whistleblower retaliation, has withdrawn his challenge to his firing, after a federal appeals panel ruled that the Trump administration had the constitutional right to remove him. While Dellinger’s legal arguments may have raised questions about the independence of his office, his decision to drop the challenge highlights a fundamental principle of U.S. constitutional law that has been well established since the nation’s founding: the President holds ultimate authority over the executive branch.

The Core of the Argument: Presidential Authority Over the Executive Branch

The heart of Dellinger’s case hinged on the idea that as the head of an independent office, he could not be removed by the President at will. However, the ruling by the federal judges reaffirms a fundamental tenet of American governance: the President of the United States has the constitutional authority to remove executive branch officials at his discretion, unless explicitly restricted by law.

This principle flows directly from the Constitution, specifically Article II, which vests executive power in the President. Article II, Section 1 states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” This provision establishes the President’s overarching authority over the executive branch of government.

Further strengthening this authority is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the President’s removal power. In the 1926 case Myers v. United States, the Court ruled that the President has the constitutional right to remove certain appointed officials, without the need for Senate approval, provided those officials are part of the executive branch. This precedent has been widely accepted in subsequent decisions, affirming the notion that the President’s ability to remove key figures in the executive branch is a crucial aspect of ensuring effective governance and upholding the principle of accountability.

---

The Precedent of Myers v. United States

In Myers v. United States, the Court held that the President’s removal power was essential for maintaining the “faithful execution” of the laws, which is a core constitutional duty. The decision explicitly affirmed the notion that the President, as the head of the executive branch, must have the ability to supervise and, when necessary, remove officials who report to him. This decision did not leave room for ambiguity: the executive power, which includes the authority to remove officers within the executive branch, rests squarely with the President.

Since then, the law has evolved with some qualifications, such as in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), where the Court recognized certain independent agencies (such as the Federal Trade Commission) with restrictions on the President’s removal power. However, these exceptions apply specifically to agencies that do not perform purely executive functions. Even in these cases, the Court has made clear that unless explicitly stated, the general presumption is that executive officers are subject to removal by the President.

The Trump Administration’s Power to Remove Dellinger

In the case of Hampton Dellinger, his office—the one responsible for investigating retaliation against whistleblowers—falls under the executive branch. Despite the specialized function of the office, it is an entity within the executive structure, and therefore, subject to the President’s authority.

It’s worth noting that the legal framework governing such offices has long recognized the President’s right to remove officials who hold positions of significant executive authority, especially when it concerns the enforcement of policies and laws. Even if the removal seemed politically motivated, as Dellinger’s legal team might have argued, it remains the prerogative of the President, as chief executive, to decide who serves in positions that report to him or are part of the executive structure.

The Futility of Dellinger’s Legal Challenge

For Dellinger, the legal challenge to his termination was ultimately futile. While the issues surrounding whistleblower retaliation and the independence of investigative bodies are vital for the integrity of government accountability, the core question of whether the President had the legal authority to dismiss him was never in doubt. As established by the Constitution and reinforced by longstanding legal precedent, the President retains final authority over the executive branch.

This constitutional principle cannot be easily overridden by any legal argument that seeks to distance a particular office or individual from presidential control, no matter how important or independent the office might appear. As the Supreme Court has made clear in cases like Myers, the separation of powers allows for checks and balances, but it also ensures that the President has the authority to ensure the effective functioning of the executive branch, which includes the power to remove officers within it.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Dellinger’s decision to drop his legal challenge represents a recognition of the longstanding principle that the President has the ultimate say in the management of the executive branch. As much as questions surrounding the independence of whistleblower protection are valid, the fundamental constitutional structure, which grants the President broad powers over executive officers, took precedence in this case.

This ruling serves as yet another reminder of the centrality of the President’s executive power in the constitutional order of the United States.